Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (
More info?)
"Lindsten" <lindsten@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CVBnc.73578$Dn1.67751@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> PTRAVEL,
>
> As posted previously, I've used TMPGEnc for some time. I've limited my
> content to one hour per DVD and used CBR 8000 kbps. This gives me some
> headroom and high audio quality.
That reminds -- set the audio to MPEG2, level 1, 228 bits. This is,
technically, not DVD standard, but I haven't found a DVD player yet that
can't handle it. The audio quality is better than CD, and you'll save an
enormous amount of space.
> This typically takes me 2-2,5 hours with an
> Athlon 1900+ and 1 Gig of RAM.
What motion level are you setting? That's nice and fast.
> The filters (like noise) slows this down a
> lot and I haven't seen much different when watching it on my TV set.
I don't bother with the filters -- I don't think they do much.
> However, I would like to know what settings you have used that you think
is
> worth while waiting for.
They're the settings from the website that I posted in this thread, along
with motion setting at the highest quality level.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:ifBnc.65603$d%.47358@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Jon Rosenbaum" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:l%Anc.8610$CC4.3176724@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > > As I'm a newbie, I was wondering if you could please elaborate on your
> > > comment below and explain what a good MPEG2 transcoder is.
> >
> > If you're asking which transcoder is good, Tmpgenc is excellent,
> > inexpensive, but very, very slow at the high-quality settings. Ligos is
> > excellent, very expensive, and fairly fast. Main Concept is quite good,
> > reasonably priced, and reasonably fast.
> >
> > If the question is more basic, i.e. what is a transcoder, video DVD
> compress
> > video using the MPEG2 format. The DV25 standard (the "native" digital
> > format) already includes a compression factor of about 5, though it
isn't
> > considered "compressed" because its what you get right out of the
camera.
> > MPEG2 introduces additional compression up to a factor of 8 or more. It
> is
> > a "lossy" compression format, in that what comes out doesn't include all
> the
> > information which went in. Transcoders convert one video format (in
this
> > case, DV-codec AVI) to another (in this case, MPEG2). A good transcoder
> can
> > compress with less _apparent_ loss of data than a poorer one.
Conversion
> to
> > MPEG2 always requires a trade-off -- you can have fast conversion done
> > poorly, or poor conversion done quickly. There's also a tradeoff
between
> > price and quality -- generally cheaper transcoders, including those that
> are
> > hard-coded into editing programs, don't do as good a job as more
expensive
> > ones that are stand-alone products. Tmpgenc is the exception; a license
> > costs about $40 or so, and this transcoder will produce the highest
> quality
> > MPEG2 video of anything short of a studio hardware solution. It is,
> > however, notoriously slow. I use it for most of my work. To give some
> idea
> > of how slow, at its highest quality settings (which are all that I use),
> it
> > will take 12-15 hours to transcode 2 hours of AVI on my 3 GHz 512
Meg/RAM
> P4
> > machine. My older machine, a 1.4 GHz Athlon XP, would take a full 24-30
> > hours. When I first started doing NLE video, I used a 500 MHz machine
> that
> > took three days for tmpgenc to transcode 2 hours of material.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I had 2 hours of AVI video that ULead's VideoStudio software claimed
> that
> > I
> > > probably couldn't fit onto a single DVD at "Good" quality (video data
> rate
> > > of 6000 kbps).
> >
> > Hmmmm. 2 hours is pushing it at 6k CBR -- I usually wind up in the low
> 5ks
> > for that much material. Try VBR (though don't bother unless it's
atleast
> > 2-pass).
> >
> > > When I made the burn at 4000 kpbs, it came out ok though I
> > > noticed on a larger television the video appears more like a film even
> > > though the frame rate is the same.
> >
> > There's no difference in frame rate, though there is a difference in how
> > often individual pixels get updated. 4K will produce a
> noticeably-degraded
> > image, though still a very viewable. At 5k and above, most people won't
> see
> > a difference.
> >
> > >
> > > I apologize in advance if these concepts are trivial, but I'm new to
> this
> > > stuff.
> >
> > No problem. That's what these newsgroups are for.
> >
> > >
> > > "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> > > news:gjAnc.65593$DM.63392@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > Edit using the DV codec and AVI. Burn your finished video to
> > > > DVD as properly-transcoded MPEG2 (you can easily get 2 hours of
> > > high-quality
> > > > video on a DVD if you use a good transcoder).
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram